Tennessee State University Digital Scholarship @ Tennessee ...
oconnell - University of Tennessee
Transcript of oconnell - University of Tennessee
11/18/2011
1
Effects of the Morganza Spillway Release on Louisiana Black Bear
Population Dynamics
Kaitlin O’Connell, MS Candidate University of Tennessee
Department of Forestry, Wildlife and FisheriesNovember 16, 2011
12:20 pm Plant Biotech 160
Background on Louisiana Black Bears
Once abundant throughout North America
Nationwide populationdeclined
Over‐harvesting
Tensas River Basin
Upper Atchafalaya River Basin (UARB) g
Habitat loss
1 of 16 subspecies1
Historic range included TX, AR, LA, and MS1
Current populations in the Tensas (TRB) and Atchafalaya river basins (ARB)
River Basin (UARB)
Lower Atchafalaya River Basin (LARB)
1. Hall (1981 )
Listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 19922
Habitat lossBottomland
Background on Louisiana Black Bears
Bottomland Hardwoods reduced by >80% by 1980
Human‐related mortality
Road mortality
Harvesting (legal and illegal)
Photo by: Rachel Snyder
Photo by: Michael Payne
2. Neal (1990)
11/18/2011
2
The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) delisting criteria3:
1. Two subpopulations
Background on Louisiana Black Bears
must be viable: One each in TRB and ARB
2. Corridors exist between the two populations
3. Corridors must be protected
3. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan (1995)
Study Area: UARB
Pointe Coupee Parish:
North: LA 1
East: Mississippi River
South: US 190
West: Atchafalaya River
Pointe Coupee Parish
270 km2
Morganza Spillway makes up >50% of study area or 150 km2
All private land
Bottomland hardwood forests
Baton Rouge
Previous Research in UARB:
Two previous studies to estimate the population have been conducted:
Triant et al. (2004) Collected hair during the summer of 1999
Estimated 41 (± 6) bears
Lowe (2011)Lowe (2011)Collected hair during the summers of 2007‐2009
Estimated 56 (95% CI=49‐68) bears
Uneven sex ratio due to low male capture probabilities
44F:26M (2:1)
11/18/2011
3
Study Objectives
Use DNA Mark‐Recapture:
1. Estimate population size, growth rate, apparent survival,
Set between 40‐60cm
fecundity, and density
2. Compare 1‐wire vs. 2‐wire system
Top wire: 65‐70cm
Bottom wire: 35‐40cm
Sampling Methods
4 trapping sites per home range
4
Grid 1.6 km2
115 sites
2 strands of barbed wire around 3‐4 trees.
Sites were baited and scent lure was hung
Top wire: 65‐70cm
Bottom wire: 35‐40cm
4. Otis et al. (1978)
Sampling Methods
Sites were checked every 7 days for 8 weeks (summers of 2010 and 2011)
Hair was collected if >5Hair was collected if >5 guard hairs or >20 under‐fur hairs
Samples were sent to Wildlife Genetics International for analysis
Analyze data to estimate N, λ and φ
11/18/2011
4
The Great Floodof 2011
Photo by: LDWF
Photo by: Madeline Dejournett
Photo by: Heidi Brown
Flooding of the Morganza Spillway
Divert water from MS River to Atchafalaya River Basin
Completed in 19545
Opened for the first time in 1973
Second opening May 14, 2011
17 of the 125 gates were open
All gates were closed by July 7th , 2011
Water had subsided by the end of July
Photo by: USACOE
5. American Wetlands Resource
Photo by: Times Picayune Photo by : USACOE
Justification
11/18/2011
5
Study Objectives
Use DNA Mark‐Recapture:
1. Estimate population size, growth rate, apparent survival, fecundity, and densityy, y
2. Compare 1‐wire vs. 2‐wire system
3. Model effects of flooding on UARB population
Program Mark
Pradel ModelFecundity (f)
Apparent Survival (φ)
Growth rate (λ)
Modeling Flood Effects
Growth rate = additions + subtractions (λ= f + φ)
Modeling Flood Effects
Time 1 (t1) Time 2 (t2) Time 3 (t3)
φ1 p2 φ2 p3
Capture Histories made easy…
φ2
Capture Histories: N100
N110
N101
N111
11/18/2011
6
Modeling Flood Effects Capture Histories: N100 = 3 N110 = 7N101 = 10N111 = 20Ntotal = 40
N101= φ1(1‐p2) φ2p3N111= φ1p2 φ2p3
= =
To find survival, we must first find the capture probability (p)…
= =
Modeling Flood Effects Capture Histories: N100 = 3 N110 = 7N101 = 10N111 = 20Ntotal = 40
Know that we know p, we can solve for φ1 …
Fecundity (f) Uses same method but reverses the capture history:
N001 N100
Estimates the probability that if an individual was in the population at time 3 that it was in the population at time 2 and/or 1
Modeling Flood Effects
population at time 2 and/or 1.
Growth rate (λ) = f + φ
λ = 1 : not growing or declining
λ < 1 : population declining (φ > f)
λ > 1 : population growing (f > φ)
11/18/2011
7
Modeling Flood Effects
Non‐Flooded Areas (NF)
Flooded Area (F)
H1 : Bears left and returned
H1 : f2(NF) > f1(NF)H2 : φ2(NF) > φ3(NF)
H : λ < λ > λ
H3 : Bears died
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
Modeling Flood Effects
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)
H2 : Bears left and did not return
H1 : f1(NF) < f2(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) < φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)H4: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
H4: Bears stayed and survived
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : f1(F) = f3(F)H4 : φ1(F) = φ3(F)
H1 : Bears left and returned
Increase in f and λ of non‐flooded areas
Decrease φand λ of non‐flooded areas
Year 1 Year 2Year 2 Year 3
Modeling Flood Effects
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
11/18/2011
8
H1 : Bears left and returned
H1 : f2(NF) > f1(NF)H2 : φ2(NF) > φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)
l f d did
H3 : Bears died
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
Modeling Flood Effects
H2 : Bears left and did not return
H1 : f1(NF) < f2(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) < φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)H4: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
H4: Bears stayed and survived
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : f1(F) = f3(F)H4 : φ1(F) = φ3(F)
H2: Bears left and did not returnIncrease in f and λ of non‐flooded areas
Year 1 Year 2Year 2 Year 3
f, φ, and λ stay consistent of non‐flooded areas
Modeling Flood Effects
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)Year 1 Year 3
Decrease in λ of flooded areas
H1 : Bears left and returned
H1 : f2(NF) > f1(NF)H2 : φ2(NF) > φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)
l f d did
H3 : Bears died
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
Modeling Flood Effects
H2 : Bears left and did not return
H1 : f1(NF) < f2(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) < φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)H4: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
H4: Bears stayed and survived
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : f1(F) = f3(F)H4 : φ1(F) = φ3(F)
11/18/2011
9
H3 : Bears died
Modeling Flood Effects
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)Year 1 Year 3
Decrease in λ of flooded areas
H1 : Bears left and returned
H1 : f2(NF) > f1(NF)H2 : φ2(NF) > φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)
l f d did
H3 : Bears died
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
Modeling Flood Effects
H2 : Bears left and did not return
H1 : f1(NF) < f2(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) < φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : λ1(NF) < λ2(NF) > λ3(NF)H4: λ1(F) < λ3(F)
H4: Bears stayed and survived
H1 : f1(NF) = f2(NF) = f3(NF)H2 : φ1(NF) = φ2(NF) = φ3(NF)
H3 : f1(F) = f3(F)H4 : φ1(F) = φ3(F)
H4 : Bears stayed and survived
Parameters for the flooded areas are similar to those of non‐flooded areas
Modeling Flood Effects
Year 1 (Before) Year 2 (During) Year 3 (After)
11/18/2011
10
Management Implications
A few losses in a small population can cause big problems
Slow the delisting process
Management tools for USACOE to use next time
Acknowledgements
Dr. Joe Clark, advisorMaria Davidson, LDWFPaul Davidson, BBCCChris Clayton, ROM Debbie Fuller, USFWS,The “Bear Lab”Carrie LoweButch Morsey, Joey Broussard, and the Lottie Wildlife Hunt ClubTechnicians: Alex Swarigen and Matt Parker
Literature Cited
American Wetlands Resource. 2011. Louisiana River Control. Controlling the River: Maintaining the Mississippi River for National Commerece. <http://www.americaswetlandresources.com/background_facts/detailedstory/LouisianaRiverControl.html>. Accessed November 14, 2011.
Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, USA.
Lowe, C.L. 2011. Estimating Population Parameters of the Louisiana Black Bear in the Upper Atchafalaya River BasinAtchafalaya River Basin
Otis, D. L., K. P. Burnham, G.C. White, and D.R. Anderson. 1978. Statistical inference from capture data on closed animal populations. Wildlife Monographs 62.
Neal, W.A. 1990. Proposed threatened status for the Louisiana black bear and related rules. Federal Register 55(120):25341‐25345
Neal, W.A. 1992. Louisiana Black Bear Recovery Plan. Threatened status of the Louisiana black bear and related rules. Federal Register 57(4): 588‐595.
Triant, D. A., R.M. Pace III, and M. Stine. 2004. Abundance, genetic diversity and conservation of Louisiana black bears (Ursus americanus luteolus) as deteceted through non‐invasive sampling. Conservation Genetics 5:647‐659.
11/18/2011
11
Photo CreditsBrown, H. <http://blog.travelpod.com/travel‐photo/heidi.brown/3/1274033531/black‐bear‐
swimming‐by‐the‐boat.jpg/tpod.html> Accessed November 14, 2011. California Roadkill Observation System. <http://www.wildlifecrossing.net/california/roadkill/
1415> Accessed November 14, 2011. CartoonStock <http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/m/math.asp> Accessed November
14, 2011. Dejournett, M. <http://www.dailystatesman.com/blogs/madelinedejournett/entry/18685>
Accessed November 14, 2011. ,Lowe, C.L. Lottie, LA. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. <http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/
gallery?page=1&tid=609> Accessed November 14, 2011. Payne, M. Cumming, GA. Times Picayune <http://www.nola.com/weather/index.ssf/2011/05/morganza_spillway
_may_be_opene.html> Accessed November 14, 2011. Team New Orelans. ACOE. <http://www.flickr.com/photos/teamneworleans/> Accessed
November 14, 2011.
Questions?